In this column I look at a fascinating and slightly unsettling trend called retributive philanthropy. Instead of giving out of empathy or gratitude, people are donating in order to embarrass, discomfort or punish someone they feel has acted badly. A new Journal of Marketing Research paper shows this is not fringe behaviour. From naming a cockroach after an ex, to donating to Planned Parenthood in Mike Pence’s name, to sending personal messages on artillery shells in Ukraine, there is a growing appetite for giving that lands a symbolic punch. The research highlights three ingredients behind this pattern. Donors believe the target acted intentionally, donors feel strong moral emotions like anger or disgust, and donors want their contribution to deliver a consequence that feels real.
I also touch on the tension this creates for fundraisers and society. Anger clearly drives engagement and bigger donations, and political campaigns and social platforms have been leaning into this dynamic for years. Outrage spreads, algorithms reward it and soon everyone is turning up the volume to get attention. In the column I raise the question of whether this model can scale without making everything more polarized. If we encourage giving that is fuelled by spite, we may end up mirroring the very behaviour we claim to oppose. The tactic works, but we should think carefully about what it encourages us to become.
Preet Banerjee
Discussion